Interrater Reliability and Predictive Validity of the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment - Version 3 (SARA-V3).

IF 3 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL

Assessment Pub Date : 2026-07-31 DOI:10.1177/10731911261469030

Claire Bryce, Maddison Riachi, Benjamin Spivak, Troy E McEwan

{"title":"Interrater Reliability and Predictive Validity of the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment - Version 3 (SARA-V3).","authors":"Claire Bryce, Maddison Riachi, Benjamin Spivak, Troy E McEwan","doi":"10.1177/10731911261469030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study examined the interrater reliability and predictive validity of Conclusory Opinions made using the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide-Version 3 (SARA-V3). Using a pseudo-prospective design, researchers coded SARA-V3 assessments from the files of 125 Australian males with prior intimate partner violence (IPV) and evaluated validity using IPV charges over 4 years. While total scores demonstrated excellent interrater reliability (ICC = .94), Conclusory Opinions showed variable reliability (ICC = .54-.92). Conclusory Opinions had limited ability to discriminate between those with and without further police-recorded IPV (AUC = .51-.61). Sensitivity was consistently low (16.67%-33.33%), indicating most of those with further IPV were not identified as high Case Priority. Victim Vulnerability factors could not be rated due to limited file information, representing a significant limitation. These findings suggest Conclusory Opinions informed by Nature of IPV and Perpetrator risk factors may have limited predictive utility, raising questions about practical advantages over its predecessor.</p>","PeriodicalId":8577,"journal":{"name":"Assessment","volume":" ","pages":"10731911261469030"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911261469030","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study examined the interrater reliability and predictive validity of Conclusory Opinions made using the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide-Version 3 (SARA-V3). Using a pseudo-prospective design, researchers coded SARA-V3 assessments from the files of 125 Australian males with prior intimate partner violence (IPV) and evaluated validity using IPV charges over 4 years. While total scores demonstrated excellent interrater reliability (ICC = .94), Conclusory Opinions showed variable reliability (ICC = .54-.92). Conclusory Opinions had limited ability to discriminate between those with and without further police-recorded IPV (AUC = .51-.61). Sensitivity was consistently low (16.67%-33.33%), indicating most of those with further IPV were not identified as high Case Priority. Victim Vulnerability factors could not be rated due to limited file information, representing a significant limitation. These findings suggest Conclusory Opinions informed by Nature of IPV and Perpetrator risk factors may have limited predictive utility, raising questions about practical advantages over its predecessor.

查看原文本刊更多论文

配偶攻击风险评估的互估者信度和预测效度-版本3 （SARA-V3）。

本研究检验了使用配偶攻击风险评估指南第3版（SARA-V3）的结论性意见的解释者信度和预测效度。采用拟前瞻性设计，研究人员从125名澳大利亚男性的亲密伴侣暴力（IPV）档案中编码SARA-V3评估，并使用4年以上的IPV收费来评估有效性。而总分则表现出优异的评分间信度(ICC =。94)，结论性意见显示可变信度（ICC = 0.54 - 0.92）。结论性意见区分有和没有进一步警察记录的IPV的能力有限（AUC = 0.51 - 0.61）。敏感性持续较低（16.67%-33.33%），表明大多数进一步IPV的患者未被确定为高优先级病例。由于文件信息有限，无法对脆弱性因素进行评级，这是一个很大的局限性。这些发现表明，结论性意见的性质和犯罪者的风险因素可能有有限的预测效用，提出了实际优势比其前身的问题。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-

CiteScore

8.90

自引率

2.60%

发文量

期刊介绍： Assessment publishes articles in the domain of applied clinical assessment. The emphasis of this journal is on publication of information of relevance to the use of assessment measures, including test development, validation, and interpretation practices. The scope of the journal includes research that can inform assessment practices in mental health, forensic, medical, and other applied settings. Papers that focus on the assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological functioning, personality, and psychopathology are invited. Most papers published in Assessment report the results of original empirical research, however integrative review articles and scholarly case studies will also be considered.